Playoffs Ejections or not?

[Etref]

According to this article the crew ejected three players but then after huddling with the coaches, decided not to eject them.  WTF?


http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/why-guyer-and-longview-players-were-ejec.html


Midway through the second quarter of Saturday's Denton Guyer-Longview 5A Division II semifinal, a fight led to officials announcing that two players for Longview would be ejected and one player for Guyer.

One of the players was Longview defensive end Britton Eastburn and another was Guyer safety Zach Bush. I'm not sure who the other Longview player was, but it didn't matter, because nobody ended up getting ejected.

Why?

Because Longview coach John King and Guyer coach J.W. Walsh huddled with the officials, convinced them that it was too big a game to throw the players out, and said they would get their players under control.

The personal foul penalties were limited after that.

I think this was a Waco crew which handled. Anyone have any insight?

[Frank in FL]

Another casualty of letting coaches pick playoff crews. 

[rickref]

Another casualty of letting coaches pick playoff crews. 

Could be. I really would hope this is a situation where  now one could tell who threw what. But I doubt it. If you were to a point your tossing for a fight you probably are sure of what you have.  Gotta have courage and not be affraid of the scratching.

[Arbitrator]

Another casualty of letting coaches pick playoff crews. 

 

Sorry! But I think this game was a UIL Assignment!   

[TxBJ]

I sure hope that guy has his facts wrong.  If not TASO and/or UIL should have a serious discussion with that crew.

[fleetofoot]

This was a UIL assignment and crew was from Waco.

[WABill]

This was a UIL assignment and crew was from Waco.

Par for the uil course.  The rules are made to be broken when requested by coaches.

[Tx D]

I don't think this was a uil assignment

[Etref]

Guys it does not matter whether this was a coaches selection, UIL assignment or Divine Intervention. The question is did it in fact happen and if so what should be done if anything.

Rick

[whosyourdaddy]

Nothing will be done.  We aren't answereing to a Conference supervisor at the high school level.  We are trying to please the coaches in whatever way we can to keep them happy and satisfied.  If both coaches were happy with the outcome is there really any harm in what they did?

[TXMike]

The harm is in lack of consistency.  And this is EXACTLYthe kind of thing that gives ammunition to UIL that there needs to be a central oversight authority.  I am quite sure the coach "hot line" has already spread the word...if you have kids ejected in the game just promise the refs you will "take care of things" and they will likley let them back in.  Either the crew screwed the pooch by deciding and announcing there were ejections when they really were not deserved, or the R misunderstood what he was told by the crew and announced ejections when that is not what they intended, or the  R (crew) was "talked out of it."  1 of these options is totally unacceptable.  1 is understandable and acceptable. And 1 is on the borderline.

[Etref]

Well, it looks like they have been using Waco most of the playoffs. Doubt it would be the same crew. I imagine the other coach would say not to that.

[Etref]

Probably not enough since you have the information on hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[ballhog]

Nothing will be done.  We aren't answereing to a Conference supervisor at the high school level.  We are trying to please the coaches in whatever way we can to keep them happy and satisfied.  If both coaches were happy with the outcome is there really any harm in what they did?

Daddy, I thought we are the fair and impartial element of the game that is supposed to be above coercion of the coaches. What if the coaches both deiced they do not want holding called. They are both happy but the integrity of the game and the avocation we enjoy is certainly compromised. I hope that TxMike's last two scenarios are what has happened and not that combined pleas of coaches have talked officials from enforcing the rules.  

[NTXRef]

First of all, I don't know why there is speculation as to what really happened.   The DMN report points out that they admit they got talked out of the ejections.   Anybody that watched the game later that night on TV can tell exactly what happened.   So, it did happen.  So, yes, totally unacceptable!!   

As far as the suggestion as to what's the harm because both coaches were happy, I don't know how to describe in how many ways that is wrong.   What would you say, if the original gouger (after his reprieve) does it again, but this time does permanent damage to a kid's sight.   Is your defense going to be, well, the coaches promised me they were going to clean it up, and they were both happy that I let them continue playing?   

Bottom line is that there is no excuse for this.  The crew should be repremanded by TASO, not rewarded (assuming they are working the championship).  If not repremanded, then maybe there is something about accountability.   OR is this different because the coaches are happy?

[TXMike]

We know the media frequently errs in its reporting so that is why I do not automatically take their explanation as the truth.

As for accountability, this is the sort of thing I am not sure TASO has any province over.  Maybe one of the lawyers knows?

[DallasLJ]

We know the media frequently errs in its reporting so that is why I do not automatically take their explanation as the truth.

As for accountability, this is the sort of thing I am not sure TASO has any province over.  Maybe one of the lawyers knows?

  Any acts that reflect negatively against TASO are a violation of the Code of Ethics and they can be sanctioned.  If as reported, they may have put officials in a bad light in the public. How much different than drinking a beer in the parking lot after the game in uniform.  Wrong is wrong.

[TXMike]

Every phantom foul that is called puts us all in a bad light too but I don't think I want TASO investigating all of those.   Every guy who can barely fit into his uniform puts us in a bad light but I don't think I want TASO investigating all of those. 

I DO see a huge difference between drinking in public in the uniform and other "violations."  That being said, the current ethics policy does say "No official shall seek to influence a coach for the purpose of promoting personal officiating opportunities."  So I suppose someone could make the charge that is why the decision was changed but seems like you would be making a big assumption unless you had some specific facts that suggested that was the reason for the ruling change.

[whosyourdaddy]

Every phantom foul that is called puts us all in a bad light too but I don't think I want TASO investigating all of those.   Every guy who can barely fit into his uniform puts us in a bad light but I don't think I want TASO investigating all of those. 

I DO see a huge difference between drinking in public in the uniform and other "violations."  That being said, the current ethics policy does say "No official shall seek to influence a coach for the purpose of promoting personal officiating opportunities."  So I suppose someone could make the charge that is why the decision was changed but seems like you would be making a big assumption unless you had some specific facts that suggested that was the reason for the ruling change.

TX Mike, you say big assumption, but what other plausible excuse would make officials overturn ejections after discussing with both coaches? TASO needs to make this a point of emphasis for training.  Supposedly the best crews around are working this late in the season and if they aren't sure how to handle such diffciult situations then who is?  Pretty sure this would have never happened if coaches didn't dictate who calls there game the following week. 

[rickref]

The art I miss is you have a fight and anypne who particpates is gone. If a coach or both talked these guys into letting them stay in the game their are very big issues at hand. Some guys do let the fear of being scratched affect their games too much. I thnk to some degree it has affected all of us inTexas at some point. But coaches picking who does their games in play offas probably will not chnage unless the UIL does something on that front.

I would enjoy hearing from the crew why they did this. In my mind there must be some very logical reason. If there is not I find it inexcusable that they retracted their ruling because coaches asked them to.

If I was coacheing and not one of these two teams and knew this happened persoanlly I would never want to see this crew becuase I would think the oppposing coach in my game would get away with whatever he bargined for during teh game thus hurting my team.

To a degree this goes back to UIL vs TASO. Until it gets resolved one way or another we all are going to feel we can not file incidents, get backing, etc. Siting Rick's issues with the 3a game, the player passing incident and so on.

Just my 2 cents.

[TXMike]

TX Mike, you say big assumption, but what other plausible excuse would make officials overturn ejections after discussing with both coaches? TASO needs to make this a point of emphasis for training.  Supposedly the best crews around are working this late in the season and if they aren't sure how to handle such diffciult situations then who is?  Pretty sure this would have never happened if coaches didn't dictate who calls there game the following week. 

Choose 1 or the other.   Either you are accusing them of an ethics violation (trying to influence futre game assignments), or they were incompetent and did not know how to handle a difficult game situation. 

The part I miss is you have a fight and anyone who particpates is gone.

Part of the issue is we do not know what actually happened.  Often times the word "fight" is used incorrectly when describing actions between players.  Maybe that is what happened here.  Maybe covering official reported he had #X and #Y "fighting" so the R ejected them.  A short time later the R learned that the players were actually just shoving each other. So he decided that was not a "fight" and he rescinded the ejections.   

[Birddog]

I was at the game Saturday - from a neutral view & sat on one side the first half & other side 2nd half- and observed the fight. I saw the Guyer player start it after the whistle by tackling the LV player down to the ground and then the LV player threw a punch. Both players should have been ejected. Refs blew it by listening to each coach. In my opinion, there is a rule against fighting & one from each team was guilty so should have been ejected. Otherwise, it was an exciting game with 55 yd. FG, blocked punt, long TD passes/runs, & last second comeback. 2nd half appeared to be played cleanly from my observation.

This is from the responses from the article from the DMN.  Take it FWIW!

[blindref757]

That's twice this season for Longview!  They had a bench clearing brawl with Marshall early in the season--both benches cleared, kids clearly fighting on video...and if memory serves me correctly, they continued the game and nobody was ejected as a result of that incident.  There was a player who was ejected later in the game, but not for the bench clearing fight.

Longview head coach John King must be a silver-tounged devil when it comes to talking to officials!!!

[gpar]

The players should have been ejected.  The argument that it is a big game, the importance of the game, etc. all don't wash.  That very argument is the very reason WHY PLAYERS IN THAT KIND OF GAME SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO ACT THE PART AND HAVE EVEN BETTER SPORTSMANSHIP AND DISCPLINE!!!!